A television debate last night exposed, yet again, the Opposition’s instinct to manufacture panic rather than contribute constructively during a crisis. Representatives of AAP and the Samajwadi Party took exception to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comparison of the current fuel and LPG situation—arising from the West Asia conflict—with the Covid-19 pandemic. Their outrage, however, says more about their political playbook than about the merit of the comparison.
The Prime Minister’s reference was neither casual nor misplaced. When Covid-19 struck, India faced an unprecedented challenge with limited healthcare infrastructure and negligible vaccine manufacturing capacity. Instead of offering constructive suggestions, the Opposition chose fear-mongering—repeatedly asking how many Indians would die before vaccines were imported.
What followed is now part of modern India’s defining story. The country responded with resolve—ramping up production of masks and medical equipment, empowering domestic pharmaceutical companies, and delivering vaccines at record speed. India vaccinated over 96 crore people and extended medical aid to 84 countries. From vulnerability to leadership, the turnaround was swift and globally acknowledged.
It is precisely this spirit that the Prime Minister invoked. His message was simple: India has overcome crises before and can do so again. But rather than reinforcing public confidence, the Opposition appears determined to stoke anxiety.
Even more baffling is their demand for a debate on the so-called “fuel crisis.” A debate on what, exactly? There is no structural shortage. The government has already clarified that petroleum and LPG reserves are sufficient for 45–60 days. State-owned oil companies have repeatedly reassured citizens that supply chains remain intact. In such a scenario, demanding a debate is not about accountability—it is about amplifying uncertainty and creating a perception of crisis where none exists.
At best, it reflects a lack of understanding of how supply systems function during geopolitical disruptions. At worst, it is a calculated attempt to trigger panic buying and disrupt normal distribution. Either way, it is irresponsible.
The reality is far less dramatic than what is being projected. Minor delays in LPG delivery—from a few days to slightly longer timelines—are precautionary measures to ensure equitable access, especially for households with limited cylinder capacity. This is administrative prudence, not evidence of scarcity.
The government, in fact, anticipated potential disruptions arising from global tensions and prepared accordingly. Maintaining reserves for over a month is no small feat, particularly in a volatile international environment. Contrast this with past regimes, where crises often translated into visible shortages and public distress.
Equally telling are reports emerging from certain Opposition-ruled states, where artificial shortages and panic buying seem to be encouraged, if not orchestrated. When political actors choose to exploit a sensitive situation instead of stabilizing it, they undermine both governance and public trust.
In contrast, the swift intervention by Hyderabad Police Commissioner Sajjanar stands out. By cracking down on hoarders and streamlining supply chains, the administration has reassured citizens and prevented unnecessary panic. This is governance in action—firm, responsive, and focused on public interest.
The larger question is one of intent. At a time when global uncertainties are beyond domestic control, should political parties not act with a sense of responsibility? Should they not reinforce public confidence instead of eroding it?
The Opposition’s repeated reliance on alarmism has, in the past, backfired. The Covid-19 episode is a case in point—where dire predictions gave way to a story of resilience and success. There is little reason to believe that the current attempt to manufacture a “fuel crisis” will meet a different fate.
India does not need political theatrics in moments like these. It needs clarity, coordination, and collective resolve. Unfortunately, sections of the Opposition seem more invested in optics than outcomes.
If they persist with this strategy—demanding unwarranted debates and fuelling avoidable panic—they risk yet another public embarrassment. Because when facts prevail, fear loses. And when fear loses, so does the politics built around it.
